Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context about immutability of versions and the hasMore flag indicating pagination, which are not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination guidance is tucked into the second sentence without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description adds the key behavioral notes (immutability, hasMore, pagination) and a pointer to get_workflow. It's complete for a read-only listing tool; nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The mention of hasMore is about output, not parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists a workflow's deployed (immutable) versions, specifying the resource and that they are integer deploy numbers with optional names. It also differentiates from get_workflow by noting that tool fetches a version's steps, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_workflows or list_workflow_runs without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit pagination guidance (prefer narrowing filters over paginating, pass nextPageToken only when every item is needed) and names the alternative get_workflow for fetching steps. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus list_workflows or list_workflow_runs, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.